Related

Post navigation

37 thoughts on “Monday Message Board”

Of course socialism works. It just doesn’t work for all of the people all of the time. It works for more of the people most of the time.

Maybe you should just see socialism as a means to an end – further lifting humanity to a higher level, to a society and set of values that can work for all the people all of the time.

This is the march of history, from primitive cannibalism, through barbarian plunder and slavery (Romans, and Vikings) through serfdom (medieval) and into colonial murder and plunder under British, French and other Europeans.

Over the centuries the sphere of human rights has expanded, so that, today the key, and only, impediments to further developments, are the forces of capitalism.

If humanity can lift itself out of cannibalism, slavery, serfdom, and gender and racial oppression, it can lift itself to even higher levels. You need to overcome the capitalist mentality and associated alienation or dreams of a different form of capitalism.

Socialism merely guarantees equity based on each individuals contribution to the economy and a minimum standard for all. So it does work for all for most of the time but not necessarily equitably. The point is that inequity under socialism is not based on subjective factors and does not lead to a structural crisis. Socialism does not remove competition between individuals and groups. So there will continue to be winners and losers.

The point I am making Ivor is that socialism is totally foreign to the thinking of people whose only interests are themselves totally. Such people are often demonstrate the ability to outperform those who share their time assisting and cooperating with others and therefore loemps rise through bureaucracies and corporate structures (Tony Abbott being the latest such example and also in the news the mayors of Brazil).

The result is that if you force a loemp to live within a social sharing structure they will apply all of their creativity to defeating it. That is the fatal flaw in the pure socialist society. However if by chance or circumstance the loemps are eliminated, as happened in Robert Sopalsky’s Study troop, then sustainable socialist harmony is possible. Possible at least until a loemp emerges naturally through regeneration.

High ideals cannot defeat the fundamentals of infused human nature in a significant proportion of a population. That is why the social democracy the real solution. There must be a mechanism to identify and sideline toxic individuals. Donald Trump’s attempt at the Presidency is an interesting study example. Can extreme wealth defeat democracy?

The result is that if you force a loemp to live within a social sharing structure they will apply all of their creativity to defeating it.

Empathy has two elements: one is caring about whether other people are hurt, and the other is knowing whether other people are hurt. A person can have impairments in one without being impaired in the other, and I don’t think they actually correlate that closely.

The latter is actually pretty easy to identify — there are some really distinctive language markers — but it’s not by-and-large the one we care about.

Dealing with toxic people seems easy if within a cooperative benefits and earnings are distributed democratically.

This is social democracy based on market socialism.

If you try to create social democracy based on capitalism – toxic individuals will erect themselves as executives and managers with control over staffing, financial data, meetings etc and will destroy opportunities for others.

Under capitalism you give these people the means to destroy society – under socialism you deprive them of this capacity.

In a moment of least surprise, the AFP announces that Bronwyn Bishop has no charges against her, as they have found no evidence of criminality. It is looking like it is impossible to prosecute a member of parliament for what seem to be clear breaches of the rules; travelling from A to B isn’t illegal, but where the minister has used a means of transport which is in excess of what would be considered reasonable—the ministerial chauffeur service for instance—the minister is required to pay for the difference, *and* to sign a declaration to that effect. It is this last part which Bishop didn’t comply with, as she apparently signed off as claiming the entire expense of the helicopter travel.

I guess what this means is that ministers can catch a rocket from A to B for all the finance dept cares, hey, it’s only taxpayers’ money involved. [sarcasm intended]

What it does demonstrate is that the rules on travel are in desperate need of tightening up. Ministers get a pretty good deal for travel in the first place, being able to use a chauffeur service for example; flying a helicopter to a state Liberal function is manifestly excessive IMHO, but now that the precedent is there, I guess we’ll see a lot more of it.

I saw it in a Times Law Report on another matter in the 1980s, that made reference to this happening a considerable period before. It stuck in my mind as it was so counter-intuitive. I hope that helps.

Ah… I see where you’re probably coming from, a thorough familiarity with Australian case law that tells you that it never happened in Australia. But I never suggested that it did (I saw it in a British newspaper, reporting on English cases); you may have been jumping to a conclusion there.

I am having considerable difficulty accessing this page now that somebody has linked a video; javascript needs to be enabled to reply (always a nuisance), and that is nearly impossible as the video has imposed a script that is frequently stalling my browser. I am unlikely to be practically able to reply further.

Does anyone know that our new PM blogs? This is an interesting post in which our PM expresses how underwhelmed he is with the famous – not – economist who wears a mask and blogs at that lol libertarian and centre right place.

Turnbull begins his blog; “Plagiarism is the sincerest form of flattery, so no doubt the Melbourne libertarian economist Sinclair Davidson was flattered when he saw Terry McCrann this morning write in the Herald Sun:

“Anyone who understood and believed in the free market system would know that there is no such thing as unsustainable tax cuts; only unsustainable expenditures.””